Strategic Management and Leadership – From the Legal Industry to Financial Services to Healthcare: “what got you here won’t get you there”

In today’s environment there are accelerated disruptions occurring in many industries as a result of new technologies,[1] new entrants, new business models, and globalization. Leaders must be able to adapt to the increasingly complex nature of the challenges to their industries – whether that be the legal industry,[2] healthcare,[3] or financial services,[4] etc.[5] – and to their organizations. Today’s leaders must have the training and understanding to think strategically, more systemically, they need to think in much bigger, more complex ways – to ‘connect the dots’.[6] And, they require the skillset of a structured strategic management approach – that embraces strategy formulation, implementation and evaluation, and recognizes the value of emergent (entrepreneurial) thinking[7][8] – to make sense of such a rapidly changing environment.

The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.

Having business acumen means understanding how your business operates, that all organizations must respond and adapt to change to remain sustainable and relevant, and that there is no such thing as a permanent or ‘one-size fits all’ business model, operational model, or organizational structure.[10] If you are interested in moving up in an organization, you need to understand what your organization’s competitive advantage is, threats to the organization, what drives performance, how to compete against other organizations, leadership and consensus building, and change management. This knowledge helps a leader – particularly senior leaders and executives – exercise good judgment and navigate effectively when making business decisions in increasingly complex and uncertain environments where solutions are rarely straightforward. To do this you will need to be familiar with and understand the fundamentals of strategic management theory and practice.[11]

Why? Because strategic management provides overall and purposeful direction to an organization that is critical for long-term sustainable success. A senior leader – executives and other decision-makers – by definition, make decisions. But as a senior leader, you are no longer just making decisions for your team. You will now be responsible for weighing the organization’s strategy, execution capabilities and potential risks, and thinking not just about your personal success but about the organization’s overall performance.[12] Leaders need to identify and respond to “tomorrow’s challenges today”, to be pro-active not reactive, and to make judgment calls and build consensus in ambiguous and even unprecedented situations.[13] That shift in thinking – “from a singular to a 360-degree perspective of the organization” – is what differentiates senior leaders and executives:[14]

“This means that, as [a senior leader or] executive, you need to constantly find ways to connect different parts of the organization, leverage new capabilities, and achieve something that linear thinking could not. You’re what the military calls a force multiplier – someone who dramatically increases the effectiveness of a team. Your job is to create new value, disrupt your environment and push the limits. It’s not for the faint of heart.

You are also starting with a blank canvas. When you’re a manager or individual contributor, your goals are usually handed down to you and shared across your team. As [a senior leader or] executive, your role is to paint a clear picture of where you want to take your team or organization, and drive that vision with energy and conviction. You [and the leadership team] create the road map.

Still interested in becoming an executive? My advice is to start thinking like one.”

Leadership is about setting direction and strategic objectives and goals for an organization, and management is about the effective and efficient use of resources to pursue that direction and achieve those goals. Not surprisingly, adept leadership and management are inherently tied to strategic management theory and practice – responding to change, determining and setting strategic direction, and implementing, evaluating, and actively managing the strategy and day-to-day activities required to achieve the organization’s vision, mission, long-term objectives and short-term goals.[16]

In this respect, it has been said that strategic management “has become the single clearest manifestation of effective leadership” for health care organizations[17] – and in today’s volatile environment this characterization is particularly appropriate for business organizations and complex enterprises (such as banks, insurance companies, and other financial services organizations).[18] Similarly, in the context of a rapidly changing legal world, law firms and legal departments that embrace strategic management “as the primary leadership philosophy and process for understanding and addressing change” are obtaining a competitive advantage in and of itself.[19] Legal organizations that regularly dedicate leaders, resources, and time to strategic planning and actively building robust leadership capabilities are set to win significant market share and outperform their competitors. Traditional law firm models that seek to simply rely on their brands, pedigree, and market positions – without more – will rapidly lose ground to their more proactive competitors over the next three years, and struggle to remain relevant over the next decade.[20]

[Business and management educator] Marshall Goldsmith … said it best: ‘What got you here won’t get you there!’[21] Just because you’re smart, committed to your organization and have been told that you’re on the fast track to success, your path to an executive role is by no means guaranteed.

The Language of Strategic Management – how it is used and misused in the literature

Managerial language has been used to obfuscate and politicise the managerial process, especially the strategic process.[23] Different viewpoints have been explored, and multiple schools of thought defined,[24] likely in response to the challenges of strategy formulation in turbulent and unpredictable environments and a more nuanced approach to seeing organizational terrain. In order to utilize and practice the ideas of the strategy specialty – in particular strategic management – the use and misuse of the words in the strategy lexicon must be understood. The problem that the lack of consistency in the academic and business worlds create is, that in trying to assess the strategic process in the literature and in practice, it is often impossible to know exactly what strategic methodology is being expressed.[25] Esoteric debates about the ‘true’ nature of strategy – often impenetrable to most practitioners – have emerged. There are now so many varied views of strategy and strategic management it has become hard to be sure of what we mean when we use the terms.[26]

Rather than concentrate on definitions of strategy and variously advocated ways to framework the accepted processes of strategic management (many saying the same thing in different ways), it is necessary to seek to understand how the terminology is applied. Overall, it appears today that strategic management has become more comfortable with an eclectic approach, but with an eclecticism built on a greater recognition of process, change management, and a smaller number of fundamental elements.

Strategic management and planning involves complex issues and some fairly difficult analysis and thinking. However, good strategic planning can and should be simplified (but not simplistic). This article will focus on strategic management, planning and thinking, initial assessment and situation analysis, and the central role of the following framework in shaping strategic management’s gaze: (a) strategy formulation, (b) strategy implementation, and (c) strategy evaluation / re-evaluation.[27]

There is no universal model of the strategic management process. The one, which was described in this article, is just one more version of so many models that are established by other authors.

The rate of technological, competitive, economic, social, and geo-political change impacting organizations across the U.S., the UK, Australia, Canada, the EU, and across the world continues to accelerate. Organizations that best adapt to the demands of their environment prosper, and those organizations that do not adapt – in particular to disruptive and/or transformative change[29] – become less relevant with each passing years. Staying relevant is the key to success,[30] but how this is to be accomplished is the question that must be addressed by all organizations and their leadership teams:[31]

“Most companies have leaders with the strong operational skills needed to maintain the status quo. But they face a critical deficit: They lack people in positions of power with the know-how, experience, and confidence required to tackle what management scientists call “wicked problems.” Such problems can’t be solved by a single command, they have causes that seem incomprehensible and solutions that seem uncertain, and they often require companies to transform the way they do business. Every enterprise faces these kinds of challenges today.”

Strategic management theory offers an important set of interrelated touchstones for leaders to effectively and purposefully lead and manage organizations in this complex, uncertain and ever-changing world – irrespective of the size of the organization, ownership structure, type of sector and industry, nature scope and complexity of operations, risk profile, or the level of regulation. The techniques of strategic management are applicable across the range of organizations – from large multi-business enterprises to small one person businesses, from manufacturing to professional service organizations, from hospitals to the home and community care sector, and from profit seeking to not-for-profit organizations.[32]

Law firms that achieve rapid and sustainable growth have clear strategic plans, linked to their chosen target markets. … This is a critical success factor that often separates the “good” from the “great” — firms that consistently outperform the market know exactly where they are going, and more importantly, how and why.

However, strategic management is not a panacea,[34] and – like many important leadership and business practices – not “trivial to tackle. But conscious, disciplined practice boosts the chances of rising above the harried din of day-to-day specifics, leading your team effectively, and surveying your [organization’s] and its competitive landscape with creative foresight”.[35]

In fact, many organizations – in particular public corporations – invest significant time and energy on strategic plans. They develop their mid- to long-term strategies, benchmark their company against the competition, and check budgets against actuals to ensure the strategy is working and ROI is achieved. One of the ironies of strategy is that – looking back – it can seem deceptively simple when it’s done right, and easy to see when it’s done wrong. When it works, it seems like it was always obvious.[36] And yet there are numerous business leaders, professors, and consultants writing articles and textbooks on business strategy.

Organizations today need to be agile and flexible (entrepreneurial if you will) in light of changing conditions – yet at the same time, have a core structure that is consistent with core competencies – a mix of formal and informal planning should be considered for effective strategic management. In addition to the deliberately planned strategy, leaders must have the ability to recognize and judge the worth of “emergent” strategies as intentions collide with and accommodate a changing reality (i.e. a realized pattern that was not expressly intended in the original planning of the strategy; an evolution of the strategic planning process: although unintended, recognizing and adopting an emergent strategy may help a business adapt more flexibly to the practicalities of changing market conditions[37]):[38]

“Many ways are possible to think about strategic management in organizations. These approaches can be broadly grouped into two distinct views – those that assume that with proper analysis a workable strategy can be prescribed in advance, then carried out, versus those with the underlying assumption that too much complexity and change exists for a complete and viable plan to be worked out in advance, thus the strategy will emerge over time.

These two fundamental views of strategic management are referred to as the [1] analytical or rational approach and the [2] emergent approach.[39]

Specifically, analytical or rational approaches to strategic management rely on a logical sequence of steps or processes (linear thinking) to develop a predetermined logical plan and carry it out without change. An emergent approach … relies on intuitive [entrepreneurial] thinking, leadership, and learning with the understanding that because of external change, strategic plans evolve as strategy unfolds and the organization learns what works and what does not. Both approaches are valid and useful in explaining an organization’s strategy and neither the analytical approach nor the emergent view, by itself, is enough. …

It is difficult to initiate and sustain organizational action without some predetermined logical plan. Yet in a dynamic industry … [leaders and] managers must expect to learn and establish new directions as they process.

The analytical approach is similar to a map, whereas the emergent model is similar to a compass. Both may be used to guide one to a destination. A map is a convenient metaphor for a predetermined plan, guideline, or method. Maps are better in known worlds – world that have been charted before. A compass serves as a useful metaphor for an intuitive sense of direction and leadership. Compasses are helpful when leaders are not sure where they are and have only a general sense of direction.[40]

[Leaders] may use the analytical approach to develop a strategy (map) as best they can from their understanding of the industry and by interpreting the capabilities of the organization. Once they begin pursuing the strategy, new understandings and strategies may emerge and old maps (plans) must be modified. … [Leaders] must remain flexible and responsive to new realities – they must learn. …

What is needed is some type of a model that provides guidance or direction to strategic [leaders and] managers, yet incorporates learning and change. If strategy making can be approached in a disciplined way, then there will be an increased likelihood of its successful implementation.

A model or map of how strategy may be developed will help organizations view their strategies in a cohesive, integrated, and systematic way. Without a model or map, [leaders and] managers run the risk of becoming totally incoherent, confused in perception, and muddled in practice.[41]”

In the real world, through the management of the strategic plan, new insights and perspectives will emerge – as leadership and managers implement and carry out the strategic plan, they must evaluate its success, learn more about what works, and – where appropriate – re-evaluate and incorporate new strategic thinking into the organization’s strategy.[42]

An intended strategy is the strategy that an organization hopes to execute. … An emergent strategy is an unplanned strategy that arises in response to unexpected opportunities and challenges. … A realized strategy is the strategy that an organization actually follows. Realized strategies are a product of a firm’s intended strategy (i.e., what the firm planned to do), the firm’s deliberate strategy (i.e., the parts of the intended strategy that the firm continues to pursue over time), and its emergent strategy (i.e., what the firm did in reaction to unexpected opportunities and challenges).

The success of any organization’s strategic plan depends on two factors: ownership and accountability in execution of the plan, and the ability to learn what works in practice and be strategically and operationally flexible.

Strategic management theory and practice is crucial for the sustainable success of an organization. In addition, leadership qualities and practices[44] related to an organization’s strategies are not only crucial for leaders but employees, too. Strategy and leadership establishes the tone and affects company work culture and performance.[45] Strategic Management gives a broader perspective to the employees of an organization – from the executive to the supervisor to the frontline employee – and they can better understand how their job fits into the entire organizational plan and how it is co-related to other organizational members. It is the skillset of managing organizations (both large and small) and its employees in a manner which maximizes the ability of achieving business objectives.[46]

Strategy is the foundation and fuel for everything an organization does, and employees are more than cogs in the machine or an engine of business strategy. Ideally, employees are accountable, results-focused and open as they become leaders in their roles and collaborate with their team. This balance of strategy and implementation homes in on purpose and potential from the C-suite to individual employees, who respect and trust one another and thrive at work.[47]

Strategic management is the (a) formulation, (b) implementation, and (c) evaluation of cross-functional decisions that will enable an organization to achieve its vision, mission, and objectives. It is the process of specifying the organization’s long-objectives and short-term goals, developing policies and plans to achieve these objectives and goals, and allocating resources to implement the policies and plans to achieve them. The choice of strategy – the ultimate step in strategy formulation – is done after considering the organization’s vision and mission (and long-term objectives), internal organizational strengths, potential and limitations, and external threats and opportunities.[49]

Strategic Planning and Strategic Thinking

Strategic management involves the related concepts of strategic planning and strategic thinking. Strategic planning is analytical in nature and refers to formalized procedures to produce the information used for strategic thinking, which synthesizes the data resulting in the strategy.[50] Strategic thinking involves the generation and application of unique business insights to opportunities intended to create competitive advantage for an organization. It involves challenging the assumptions underlying the organization’s strategy and value proposition by “capturing what the [leader and] manager learns from all sources (both the soft insights from his or her personal experiences and the experiences of others throughout the organization and the hard data from market research and the like) and then synthesizing that learning into” the proposed – or revised – strategy, “the direction that the business should pursue”.[51]

Strategic thinking may proceed as a linear process, but is most effective as part of every step in the strategic management process. Strategic thinking affects and is affected by the process (strategy formulation, strategy implementation, and strategy evaluation/re-evaluation ) – these processes are interdependent in that activities and decisions in each element of the strategic management framework affect and are affected by the others.[52]

A strong strategic plan identifies your firm’s goals and objectives and sets out a clear vision for its future. It assesses the external and internal factors that have an impact on the business of the firm.

– Canadian Bar Association, How to Develop and Implement a Strategic Plan for Your Firm[53]

Strategy

There are many definitions of strategy.[54] According to Harvard’s Alfred D. Chandler, corporate strategy is the determination of the basic long term objectives of an enterprise and the adoption of courses of action and allocation of resources necessary to carry out the required goals to meet the organization’s objectives. To Dartmouth’s James Brian Quinn it is “the pattern or plan that integrates an organization’s major goals, policies, and action sequences into a cohesive whole”. In the words of Peter Drucker, strategy is the company’s basic approach towards achieving its overall objectives. It is a careful, deliberate, and systematic approach to clarifying corporate objectives, making strategic decisions, and checking progress toward the objective.

Strategic Management

Strategic management is a continuous process (and formally re-evaluated at least annually), and may be seen as management of the combined components of the three stages of the strategy process: (a) strategy formulation, (b) strategy implementation, and (c) strategy evaluation. It involves understanding the strategic position of an organization, strategic choices for the future, and managing and assessing the strategy in action. Through the actual management and evaluation of the strategic plan in action, new insights and perspectives emerge and strategic thinking and planning are reinitiated.

Both strategic management and strategic planning terms mean the same. The difference is that the latter one is more used in the business world while the former is used in the academic environment.

If a multi-year strategy is determined to be working effectively, and few if any changes are required for the commencement of a new fiscal year, leadership within an organization may pursue a maintenance of scope strategy. This type of strategy “does not necessarily mean that the organization will do nothing”, but rather that leadership is of the opinion that “the organization is progressing appropriately”:[56]

“There are two maintenance of scope strategies: enhancement and status quo.

Enhancement seeks to improve operations within present product or service categories in various ways, such as by implementing quality programs, increasing flexibility, increasing efficiency, improving speed of delivery, and so on. When management believes that the organization is progressing toward its vision and goals but needs to ‘do things better’, an enhancement strategy may be uses; neither expansion nor reduction of operations is appropriate but ‘something has to be done’. … [T]he adoption of information technology may be an enhancement strategy that creates competitive advantage. …

A status quo strategy is a maintenance of scope strategy … the goal is to maintain market share and keep services at their current level. Environmental influences affecting products or services should be carefully analyzed to determine when significant change is imminent.”

Strategic management theory and strategic management “in practice” provides a robust framework for blending rational analytical planning with the important emergent approach[57] of learning and responsiveness within a changing environment, addressing new realities that may emerge, and determining what actually works.[58]

Strategic management is the art and science of formulating, implementing and evaluating cross-functional decisions that will enable an organization to achieve its objectives. It is the process of specifying the organization’s objectives, developing policies and plans to achieve these objectives, and allocating resources to implement the polices and plans to achieve the organization’s objectives.

Bringing it all together, strategic management theory may be said to be a system of ideas intended to explain the origin, evolution, principles, and applications of strategic management. Strategic management theory has evolved over time in order to address the internal and external needs of corporate, non-profit, and government organizations and the requirements of changing external environments, leading to a number of academic and/or theoretical strategic management approaches and theories over the years.[60]

There is no one or single best way or approach to manage organizations. Agile organizations develop appropriate strategy based on the situation and condition they are experiencing – as opposed to the lockstep of any one particular theory – and this is especially important throughout the process of strategy formulation, implementation, and evaluation. Various strategic management theories may be considered as helpful tools to assist them in the process, but to be successful organizations must avoid tunnel vision and group think.

Strategy, in short, bridges the gap between “where we are” and “where we want to be”.

[T]he strategic planning process can be as simplistic or complex as necessary. Most important is that the strategic plan is developed to consider the unique needs and context that the target organization is operating within.

Strategy formulation and goal setting, strategy implementation, and strategy evaluation involve personnel at all levels within the organization. Accordingly, communication is key throughout the organization to ensure that corporate, business, and operational or functional level strategies are attainable and consistent with each other and with corporate goals and objectives.[62]

Strategic management is the highest level of managerial activity and provides overall direction to the enterprise. Within multi-business organizations, strategic leaders are found not just at the apex of the organization but also at different levels within its hierarchy. A typical multi-business has three main levels of management: corporate level, business level, and operational or functional level.[63]

The corporate level of management consists of the CEO and senior executive leadership team, the Board of Directors, and corporate staff. These leaders occupy the apex of decision making within the organization, with the CEO being the main strategic manager at this level overseeing the development of strategies for the total organization. Typically this role involves defining the mission, vision and major goals of the organization – determining what businesses it should be in, allocating resources among the different business areas, and formulating and implementing strategies that span individual businesses.[64]

In a multi-business organization, the business level consists of heads of individual business units within the organization – who are the main strategic managers for the business – and their support staff. In a single industry company, the business and corporate levels are the same. A business unit is an organizational entity that operates in a distinct business area, and may, for example, be based on a federal model or be self-contained and have its own functional departments. Generally, the business unit leaders’ strategic role is to translate general statements of direction and intent from the corporate level into concrete strategies for individual businesses. While corporate level leaders are concerned with strategies that span individual businesses, business level strategic leaders are concerned with strategies that are specific to a particular business.[65]

Operational or functional leaders bear responsibility for specific business functions, such as – depending on the type of business – personnel, legal, customer service, claims, marketing, purchasing, quality, research, etc. Historically these leaders are not positioned to look at the organization’s overall big picture, but nevertheless have an important strategic role to develop functional strategies that help fulfill the strategic objectives set by business and corporate level strategic leadership.[66] However, in the ‘new normal’ innovative organizations and their leadership teams are empowering their functional leaders to think and operate more strategically than they did in the past.[67]

Large enterprises are rarely organized using just a single structural building block, and will use a combination of structures to mix and often supplant the basic design (i.e. functional structure; divisional structure– based on products/services, geographic markets, customers; matrix structure – where centralized functional specialists interact with and provide services to project or program teams; combination structures and teams – using more than one type of organizing approach). Although the organizational structure building blocks set the basic design of the organization, seldom are they adequate for carrying out the strategy and work of the organization. Most organizations therefore modify their basic structure with some type of coordinating structures:[68]

“[C]oordinating structures are sometimes referred to as the collateral organization – a system of teams, task forces, committees, and ad hoc groups that supplement the basic organization structure and are used to bring different perspectives to the table for discussion and resolution. No organization can function for long without an effective collateral organization. Collateral structures include: project and product teams … cross-functional task forces … venture [intrpreneuring] teams … re-engineering teams … executive and standing committees.”

There is no such thing as being successful. It’s not about success. It’s about adapting to changing times. We try to change before a crisis strikes us. I’ve studied the solutions traditional enterprises adopt, and conclude that the majority are designed only for short-term effect. Clearly, many don’t work in the long run. This is painfully illustrated by the ‘Fortune 500 disease’[69].

Some business and academic leaders have suggested that in light of “the coming tidal wave of disruption” (in particular “digital disruption”),[71] going forward organizations – particularly large organizations – must at least consider moving “toward participative management, decentralized decision making, and autonomous but accountable work teams and platforms”[72] embracing entrepreneurial[73] and emergent[74] thinking, and strategic management. Greater diversity in the composition and function of teams is occurring more frequently than in the past. It is important that both traditional teams and virtual teams have a clear direction, the right mix of members, support from the organization’s leadership, and sense of identity (common understanding of organization’s culture and values, and the team’s mission).[75]

Talking about the need to transform walled enterprises with top-down management structures into decentralized open networks or corporate ecosystems is all the rage these days. But implementing revolutionary change at the enterprise level is easier said than done, especially for folks who live and breathe traditional management theory.

Although “the path may be riddled with challenges”, many organizations across industries are also looking at “transforming into ecosystem organizations” [77] – and its spread and uptake is pointing to a strategic and business utility that likely should not be underestimated[78]:[79]

“Times change. And there is no question that digital technologies have disrupted the models that customarily defined how we conduct business. This leaves monolithic corporations across all industries with a clear choice: they can continue to lose ground and eventually watch their business crumble, or they can take charge of their own future by embracing the new way of integrating functions and becoming an ecosystem organization.

Changing from a monolithic business to an ecosystem organization is difficult. It requires reconfiguring the company’s entire value chain—taking it apart piece by piece and then putting it back together with a new structure. This structure includes not only the company’s internal operations but also multiple external partners that truly work together toward the single goal of serving the customer better. … [T]his transition requires the company to develop a new mindset.”

As well, “ecosystems thinking” provides a new strategic mindset that captures a profound shift in the economy and the business landscape. As digital technologies (including connectivity, data analytics and AI, digital platforms),[80] make it increasingly feasible for organizations and firms to facilitate much more complex coordination of expertise and activities with external assets and multidisciplinary resources they neither own nor control (through partnerships, networks, alliances, and collaborations), the “art of the possible”[81] is expanding rapidly.[82]

Looking at the traditional law firm for example, going forward a sustainable law firm business model will require working with an ecosystem of legal and non-legal partners to create best-in-class offerings, and take advantage of technology developments that make it more efficient and less expensive to reach legal consumers and provide services – which in turn will increase demand for those legal services. Like any organization or business looking to embrace this type of new business model, it must be supported by new capabilities, processes, and most importantly organizational structures.[83]

Increasingly, businesses operate in a broader network of related businesses offering particular products or services. This is known as a business ecosystem – a network of interlinked companies … who interact with each other, primarily complementing or supplying key components of the value propositions (benefits for customers) within their products or services. … Ecosystems also create strong barriers to entry for new competition, as potential entrants not only have to duplicate or better the core product … but they also have to complete against the entire system of independent complementors and suppliers that form the network.

Strategic management is the process of setting a hierarchy of organizational objectives (for the long-term) and goals (for the short-term), and using these milestones to gauge progress. In order to do this, strategic management must start with the organization’s big picture “mission”, “vision”, “values”, and long term objectives – whether that means reviewing the ones in place or, if absent, defining and articulating them for the organization.[85]

Big picture mission, vision, values, and long-term objectives are appropriately referred to as “directional strategies” for the organization[86] – guiding principles for leaders and managers to refer to and use when making short and long term decisions: from strategic goals, to action plans and other key organizational decisions. [87]

Long-term objectives typically cover a period of five years, and they embody a tangible quantitative outcome. With a clear vision, mission and long-term objectives in place – and communicated across the organization – the leadership team is well positioned to develop shorter term goals (i.e. 1 year) that will move the organization in the desired direction. By considering the big picture “directional strategies” when addressing day-to-day operations and annual goals, strategic leaders are able to move their organization in a consistent cohesive direction and avoid unnecessary missteps.[88]

Developing the strategic plan (road map) requires situational analysis and strategic planning (i.e. strategy formulation), as well as planning and operational implementation of the strategy (strategy implementation). Decision consistency is key to strategy, and once agreed upon the organization should be consistent in its decisions and exhibited behaviour – subject of course to re-evaluating the strategy – in coping with technological, competitive, economic, social, and geo-political issues.

Strategy Formulation

Strategy formulation is the process by which an organization’s strategic leaders comes together to reach consensus and decide on the best course of action for accomplishing its defined organizational objectives (and hence achieving its organizational purpose). In particular, strategy formulation:[89]

Provides a sequential, step-by-step process for creating a strategy.

Involves periodic group strategic thinking (brainstorming) sessions.

Requires data / information, but incorporates consensus and judgment.

Establishes organizational focus.

Facilitates decision making.

Results in a documented strategic plan (i.e. road map for carrying out the strategy and supports decision consistency throughout the organization – from the leadership team to managers and supervisors to front-line personnel).

(a) Mission, Vision, Values, and long-term objectives

Strategic management starts with reviewing the organization’s big picture “directional strategies” – its vision,[90] mission,[91] values, and long-term objectives.[92] One of the first things that any observer of management thought and practice asks is whether a particular organization has a vision and mission statement – each of which should clearly articulate the organization’s overall reason for being in business, its purpose if you will:[93]

“It has been found in studies that organizations that have lucid, coherent, and meaningful vision and mission statements return more than double the numbers in shareholder benefits when compared to the organizations that do not have vision and mission statements. …

Vision and mission statements spell out the context in which the organization operates and … specify the core structure on which the organizational edifice stands and to help in the translation of objectives into actionable cost, performance, and time related measures.”

The mission, vision, values, and long-term objectives define the business of an organization and state basic goals, characteristics, and guiding philosophies. They set out why the organization exists, what it should be doing, and the organizational context within which strategic decisions will be made.[94] It gives an organization strategic focus and direction.[95] A clear understanding of where an organization wants its business to go in the long term is important for strategic management, as it more effectively positions its leadership team to chart an appropriate cohesive course that is open to re-evaluation as circumstances unfold over time.[96]

In addition to the vision and mission statements, “values” are the fundamental principles important to the organization’s leadership, management and personnel, and shape the organization’s culture. It is generally accepted that values drive behaviors, and behaviors drive outcomes.[97] Clearly articulating an organization’s ‘values’ – and embedding these values within a strong culture – is an important key to building an organization’s competitive advantage, reputational capital, and sustainable business.[98]

Strong “value based” cultures with strong leadership have two common elements: there is a high level of agreement about what is valued, and a high level of intensity with regard to those values.[99] In such organizations, fundamental values are important guiding principles that drive appropriate behaviours that will not be compromised in the organization’s journey in respect to its mission, vision, and strategic long-term objectives.

Corporate values and culture is more than words on a page. It is the full embodiment of how an organization executes. It doesn’t happen by chance. It must be declared. It must be nurtured. It must be a priority.[100] In a business environment where reputational threats lurk around every corner, strong leadership, a compelling corporate vision, and a robust culture supportive of values, integrity (ethics), accountability and “doing the right thing” is the foundation of a sustainable and successful organization. The historical lessons learned related to scandals and organizational crises across the globe make one thing clear: without strong leadership and an ethical and values based culture, organizations will always be at risk.[101]

From a global perspective, regulators and enforcement authorities are progressively of the view that a values based, ethical, and compliant business culture is one of the most important tasks for corporate Boards and C-suite executives, and this includes the General Counsel.[102] In this environment, companies must ensure they have a sustainable culture that empowers personnel at all levels to make the right decisions in light of whether it is right, legal, and fair.[103]

The culture of an organization is the expression of its values in action; it is in some sense the company’s “soul.” Whether it be damned or not is up to those who shape it—leaders and everyone who follows.

“Long-term objectives” are expressions of the desired future states of an organization, and generally intended to be achieved over a period of time – usually five years – but may range from two to five years (and longer).[105] Achieving long-term objectives moves an organization closer to achieving its overall vision and mission. Therefore objectives follow the organization’s vision and mission (unless amended by leadership as part of its strategic management evaluation or re-evaluation) and should not chart new and independent paths.[106] All objectives can – and should – be translated into more precise short-term goals (i.e. annual SMART – specific, measureable, attainable, relevant, time based – goals).[107]

Performance goals of an organization, intended to be achieved over a period of five years or more. Long-term objectives usually include specific improvements in the organization’s competitive position, technology leadership, profitability, return on investment, employee relations and productivity, [nature and degree of diversification or vertical integration, corporate social responsibility], and corporate image.

Superior performance is the result of the “fit” between the strategy and the internal and external environment – accordingly, it is essential that the factors which may influence the selection of the organization’s strategy and objectives must be analyzed before the determination of the strategy and selection of objectives and goals. As such, strategy formulation requires that strategic leaders take steps to identify and address external environmental opportunities and threats in light of the organization’s internal strengths and weaknesses.[109] This is referred to as “environmental scanning”, and it is only after conducting and addressing an environmental scan that strategic leaders formulate corporate, business and functional strategies – depending on the size and organizational structure of the enterprise – and long-term objectives and short-term goals (note: specific, quantitative, and/or target values).[110]

Working in a business setting can be frustrating for all involved. Those who work on the front lines often think executives have their heads in the clouds, too far removed to do much good. Management often sees junior-level employees as having their heads buried in the weeds, unable to be strategic because of their limited view. What if they’re both right? The truth is, both perspectives are necessary for an organization to thrive. … Remember that your perspective may be skewed by where you stand.

– William Arruda, Why Your Team Needs to Focus on the Forest and the Trees, Forbes[111]

Environmental scanning refers to the process of collecting and analyzing the internal and external factors – threats and opportunities – influencing an organization. The organizational environment consists of both external (immediate/industry environment,[112] national environment,[113] broader socio-economic / macro environment[114]) and internal factors.[115] After executing the environmental analysis process, leaders and management should evaluate it on a continuous basis and strive to improve it.[116] Strategic leaders look to not only recognize the present state of the environment and their industry, but also consider likely future positions. The process of strategic analysis is assisted by a number of tools,[117] the most widely used being the SWOT Analysis (a useful strategic planning technique for summarizing the key issues arising from an assessment of business ‘internal’ position – strengths and weaknesses – and ‘external’ environmental influences – opportunities and threats).[118]

Just about every major strategic corporate decision begins with data. … With the development of artificial intelligence, there is no sign of data-driven decisions abating.

Situational analysis is the process of understanding and documenting an organization’s external analysis, internal analysis, and the development or refinement of the organization’s ‘directional strategies’ (mission, vision, and values). The interaction and results of these activities form the basis for the development of the organization’s strategy and plan – its long-term objectives (which are usually already in place, and become a ‘directional strategy’) and short-term goals.

Strategy formulation utilizes situational analysis to develop strategic alternatives, evaluate the alternatives, and make the strategic choices (decision). This process is essential to an organization’s sustainable success, because it provides the framework for informed planning and thinking, and ultimately the strategic decisions and actions that will lead to the anticipated results.[120]

Not surprisingly, strategy formulation requires a great deal of coordination, initiative, logical skills, and strategic and emergent (entrepreneurial) thinking. However, at the end of the day it is “essentially decision making” – determining which strategy or strategies to pursue among the available options.

The value chain represents the fundamental way organizations create and deliver value to the customer. It represents the business model. … In many cases [a strategy of] reconfiguring the value chain involves using new technology or organizations to perform activities in ways that were not possible in the past.

Once the strategy for the organization has been formulated, implementation plans required to accomplish the organizational strategy are developed. “Strategy implementation” denotes making the strategy work as intended – putting the organization’s chosen strategy into action. It is the translation of the chosen strategy into action plans and goals (precise, well specified targets that are to be achieved within a given time frame),[122] and ultimately organizational action so as to achieve the strategic objectives.[123] In short, it is a series of steps and activities that are formulated to accomplish the organization’s strategic objectives and are developed in key areas that create value for an organization. Strategy implementation may be generally seen as an operational process[124] –and effective and efficient operations make strategies work.

It may take time for the big-picture people and the detail-oriented people to get comfortable looking through each other’s lenses, but the end result will be mutual clarity – and truly visionary thinking.

– William Arruda, Why Your Team Needs to Focus on the Forest and the Trees, Forbes[125]

Operational leadership and managers must translate the broader organizational-wide strategies and objectives to be achieved into sound implementation plans and goals, building and/or improving the framework – the organization’s structures and systems – to support operational execution by the organization’s functional (tactical) leaders, managers, supervisors,[126] and frontline personnel on a day-to-day basis. At this stage operational and managerial skills are extremely important.

Strategy implementation will require an evaluation and decision (i.e. maintain or change) on such matters as the organization’s structure, culture, distributing resources (financial, information systems, technologies, etc), decision making process, and managing human resources – it is the manner in which an organization will need to develop, utilize, and integrate organizational structure (i.e. decision making authority; task responsibility; operating model; governance; etc), control systems (i.e. policies and procedures; incentives/intrinsic rewards; annual “SMART” – specific, measureable, attainable, relevant, time based – action plans /business unit, business function, and individual personnel performance goals/KPIs – aligned with corresponding level of organizational objective;[127] operational execution on day-to-day basis; monitoring and feedback to personnel – performance management;[128] etc.), and culture (i.e. empowered personnel; shared values, assumptions, behavioural norms)[129] to follow strategies that lead to competitive advantage and a better performance. Different strategies and environments place different demands on an organization, and therefore will require different organizational change, structural responses and control systems.

Communication in strategy implementation (and change management) is essential as new strategies, objectives, action plans and personnel annual goals must get support across the organization for effective implementation. For ease of reference, this may be said to consist of addressing – at minimum – the following steps:

[A]nyone can be a leader. It begins with a choice and continues through learnable practices, one of which is being able to inspire a shared vision from those who follow. But a leader is not the same as a manager. A manager administers, directs and controls. Leaders, on the other hand, drive change by helping people get from “here” to “there.”

However, even the best formulated strategies will fail if there is poor alignment of the implementation plan to the overall strategy (i.e. poor “fit” among the organization’s strategy, structure, controls, and/or culture).[131] For the largest enterprise, for example, an implementation plan must address all levels – corporate, business, and operational or functional levels. An overly-ambitious implementation plan that outstrips the organization’s resources, competencies, or capabilities is unworkable.

In addition to poor alignment, it may go without saying that poor execution of the implementation plan will cause the organization’s overall strategy to be ineffectual.

However, the organization’s ability to learn (or re-learn) may make the biggest difference – as strategies and implementation plans do not always work as intended, and most of the time managers, supervisors and personnel learn by doing. Where appropriate, organizations must be willing to forego implementation plans that are not working and learn from them. An overall strategy (and values) that draws upon the organization’s strengths, fixes weaknesses, and encourages learning along the way reflects the quality of the leadership, and creates a strong culture of principled performance, adaptability, and agility for the organization. This is particularly important in these rapidly changing times.

True leadership in a complex, uncertain, and anxious world requires leaders to navigate with both a radar system and a compass. They must be receptive to signals that are constantly arriving from an ever-changing landscape, and they should be willing to make necessary adjustments; but they must never deviate from their true north, which is to say, a strong vision based on authentic values.

It should be noted that strategy formulation and/or implementation that involves significant change management – or otherwise appreciably impacts or modifies a business model, organizational structure, power/influence, or financial incentives, etc. – may be perceived as a ‘threat’ to some personnel in a given organization (i.e. executives, managers, supervisors, partners, employees). With any such change – whether actual or perceived – some impacted personnel may not support the overall strategy of the organization, and may take steps (by action or inaction) to undermine strategy implementation and/or exhibit confrontational behaviour.[133] Although in theory the strategic management process is characterized by rational decision making, in practice “organizational politics” and “fear of change” may play a key – but negative – role. For example, in respect to the leadership team itself, it is well recognized that “biases, politics and egos” may “trump good strategy”:[134]

“Peter Drucker famously said that “culture eats strategy for breakfast.” Nowhere is that more evident than in meetings to decide corporate strategies. In those rooms, egos and competing agendas, biases and social games reign. That’s because strategy isn’t the only thing at stake. Jobs – even careers – are on the line.

…

As hard as it might be to overcome those individual biases [overconfidence, confirmation bias, survival bias, attribution bias], agency problems are the real torpedoes to strategies. They’re fueled by the reality that managers act in their own interest, not purely in that of the enterprise.”

Senior leadership must appropriately anticipate, recognize and manage these type of strategy and change management[135] issues in order that the organization fulfill its strategic vision, plan and objectives, and implement appropriate change as strategically required for its long-term sustainable success.

The importance of “change management” and open communication cannot be underestimated – but leaders should view change not as an occasional disrupter but as the essence of the leadership and management role.[136] Successful implementation relies on communicating the strategic plan across the organization and developing SMART action plans (goals) – the translation of organizational strategies into specific action plans for all levels of the organization, including the front line personnel – execution, and accountability (monitoring actual performance, correcting deviations or adapting to new strategic realities).

If you don’t build your culture, one will form on its own (and you might not like what you get).

Strategy evaluation is the final step of the inter-related strategy management process. The key element in monitoring and evaluating the strategy is to get the relevant and timely information on the company’s performance and the environment and – if necessary – take corrective actions. Performance has to be measurable and comparable, and senior leaders and managers have to be able to compare the actual results with expected (i.e. estimated) results and see if they are successful in achieving their goals and objectives. With respect to the environment, due to its constantly changing nature, external and internal conditions must be continuously reviewed as new strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats may arise that must or should be addressed.[138]

The key strategy evaluation activities throughout the course of the year are: (a) appraising internal and external factors that are the root of present strategies, (b) measuring performance, and (c) taking remedial / corrective actions (note: in most cases, tactics/goals rather than strategies are changed to meet the particular challenge). Strategy and performance evaluation makes sure that the organizational strategy as well as its implementation tactics meet the organizational objectives.[139]

Big picture, it must never be forgotten that an organization’s strategy, vision and long term objectives are not set in stone, but rather, should at all times be open to re-evaluation as circumstances unfold. It is not possible in this age of transformative change to predict five years into the future what the world will be like for a particular organization’s products or services, but this uncertainty should not deter leadership from visualizing a roadmap and desired outcomes. Progress toward strategic objectives must be constantly evaluated (i.e. balanced scorecard; KPIs),[140] as should the organization’s vision, goals, long-term objectives, and the strategy itself over time – not just at a formalized annual strategy review session.[141] Voted “one of the most influential business ideas ever presented in the Harvard Business Review the Balanced Scorecard enjoys global popularity”. There are some management tools that seem to have enduring appeal and the Balanced Scorecard is one of those. Over the past 20 years it has seen adoption rates soar. At the same time, this important tool is still widely misunderstood and misused by managers:[142]

Clarify strategy – articulate and communicate their business priorities and objectives

Monitor progress – measure to what extent the priorities and strategic objectives are being delivered

Define and manage action plans – ensure activities and initiatives are in place to deliver the priorities and strategic objectives.

… [C]ompanies … need a map of where they want to go and how they intent to get there. They need performance indicators to understand how well they are doing against their plan. And finally they need to manage the initiatives, projects and action plans that will help them achieve their plan. The BSC has been designed by Robert Kaplan and David Norton to do exactly that and contains the following three distinctive components:

The first and most important component of a BSC is a so-called ‘Strategy Map’ that visually maps the key strategic objectives of a company on a single page …. A Strategy Map shows the overall destination as well as the key objectives and priorities a company must deliver along the way. The strategic objectives are usually mapped along four perspectives, which support each other (see below):

Financial Perspective – outlining the financial objectives.

Customer Perspective – outlining the objectives related to customers and the market.

Mapping out how the objectives in each perspective support each other is one of the big benefits of a Strategy Map. Instead of listing strategic objectives in a seemingly unrelated manner, the Strategy Map depicts how each objective supports others and how they all help to reach the ultimate destination.

The second component of a BSC are Key Performance Indicators that allow companies to measure and monitor progress against their most important strategic objectives (outlined in their Strategy Map). Key Performance Indicators, or KPIs for short, are the vital navigation instruments for managers. Each KPI needs to be defined well and include targets or benchmarks.

The third component of a BSC is an Action Plan that ensures the right projects, programmes or initiatives are in place to deliver each of the strategic objectives on the Strategy Map.

If all three of these components (Strategy Map, KPIs and Action Plan) are in place then a BSC can transform an organisation. … [I]t allows organisation to depict and communicate their strategic plan in a very simple and graphical way as well as monitor and manage the delivery of the plan.”

If it becomes apparent at any time that the organization’s strategy and tactics are no longer useful and relevant, the organization is in a good position to identify and articulate new ways to work toward its mission and vision.[143]

[A Balanced Score Card] can transform an organisation. For me it is the No 1 strategy execution tool because it allows organisation to depict and communicate their strategic plan in a very simple and graphical way as well as monitor and manage the delivery of the plan.

Environmental scanning (internal and external) and situational analysis never terminates. Strategic management’s components (strategy formulation, strategy implementation, and strategy evaluation) interact with each other and – when creating a new strategic management plan – are carried out in chronological order. For organizations that have already created a strategic management plan this framework is an ongoing process, and may interact in chorus. Essential changes are made as required. However, as a best practice, the strategic management framework should also be formally and specifically addressed annually.

Conclusion

Strategic management will need to play a more critical role in organizations today and going forward if leadership teams are to adeptly anticipate, and skillfully lead and manage change (whether such change represents opportunities or threats). For those organizations or senior leaders that have not adopted a structured strategic management approach (that embraces strategy formulation, implementation and evaluation, and recognizes the value of emergent – entrepreneurial – thinking), it is critical to transition to a comprehensive strategic management approach as a normal way of doing business; particularly given the rapid pace of change and increased uncertainty facing organization’s across the board and at all levels.

In an increasingly complex and changing world, leadership involves ensuring that organizational vision, mission, values, culture, and strategies are in place, remain appropriate, and the business sustainable. Appropriate leadership, strategic management, and decision making acumen is imperative in addressing fundamental organizational issues, from business strategy to ethics to risk management – but just as importantly, encouraging strategic learning, thinking, and action on an ongoing basis.

The hard news is that leadership teams face difficult choices as they balance the organization’s vision (mission), values, culture, and bottom line. In setting strategy, an organization’s leadership must confront continual change with respect to complex and uncertain issues across a myriad of regional, subnational, national, and – in the age of digital disruption and globalization – even international jurisdictions. In this environment, questions about performance, culture and values, and strategy (and strategic vision) should be front and center for leadership teams – and for corporations this includes meetings of the Board of Directors.

I believe CEOs should open every operating board meeting with the same announcement each time: “I need to hear people disagree with me and with each other, constructively. If you don’t you’re not doing your job and if you’re not doing your job you’re of no use to the business.”

Leadership teams that don’t understand strategic management, and are not aware of alternative points of view on strategy, can never be fully confident that their organization’s vision and strategy is the best one in the circumstances. Such an organization can expect a future that is both unexpected and unpleasant, as an organization that leads in such a restricted manner will likely be strategically blind to outcomes they should be able to anticipate, since they are not positioned to understand and encompass the full dimension of the risk and opportunity in its’ corporate vision, mission, and strategy – and its day to day activity.

To increase confidence in the organization’s direction and performance, there should be a common framework for decision making and addressing organizational strategy, and leaders and leadership teams should actively encourage dissent– “policy makers, scholars and practitioners around the world seem to agree that a diverse” leadership team “able to express different perspectives and challenge stereotypes, is desirable”.[146] To encourage this, senior leadership teams should include men and women who are broad-gauged leaders who are not just expert in their particular field or business, but have a deep understanding of strategy, as well as politics, policy, ethics, corporate culture, societal trends, country risk, modern communication, and corporate citizenship.[147] A leadership team’s ability to successfully lead a sustainable organization should involve multi-disciplinary leadership, and the ability to identify, understand, and address diverse economic and non-economic opportunities and threats for the organization.

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

– Winston Churchill

Ultimately, organizations and their leadership teams must be able to define problems comprehensively and comprehensibly; integrate different perspectives into strategies and proposed solutions; and upon forging an agreement on a solution and/or strategic plan, be able to implement it in a way that makes a sustainable difference to the organization and its stakeholders. Strategic management is a comprehensive process for determining what an organization should become and how it can best achieve that objective.

In addressing complex decisions involving strategy and the way forward, the first step – always – is to consider the organization’s vision, values, and principles. This will provide balance – “don’t let that get lost when grappling with a difficult decision”.[148]

Eric Sigurdson

Endnotes:

[1] Note: Digital disruption is the change that occurs when new digital technologies and business models affect the value proposition of existing goods and/or services. A disruptive technology is one that displaces an established technology and shakes up the industry or a ground-breaking product that creates a completely new industry (Harvard Business School professor Clayton M. Christensen coined the term disruptive technology).

[2] For example, see: Eric Sigurdson, The Evolving Legal Service Delivery Model: A 2018 Survival Guide for BigLaw and Traditional Law Firms – building a new business model, Sigurdson Post, January 14, 2018; Mario Cometti, The Evolving Litigation Marketplace Demands New Ways of Doing Business, New York Law Journal, July 13, 2018; Erin Hichman, Law Firms Need Artificial Intelligence to Stay in the Game, Law.com, July 17, 2018; Erin Hichman, ALM Intelligence Report: Law Firms Need Artificial Intelligence to Stay in the Game, ALM.com, July 2018; Eric Sigurdson, Legal Profession on the Precipice: Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Legal Technology, Sigurdson Post, July 31, 2017; Nicole Black, Law Firms, Artificial Intelligence, And the Fork in the Road, Above the Law, July 26, 2018; Heather Morse, Is the ‘game changer’ for the legal industry finally here?, The Legal Watercooler, July 25, 2018; Rod Henderson, Australia’s $200 Billion Services Sector Vulnerability to Disruption by AI, LinkedIn, July 25, 2018; William Henderson, Legal Market Landscape Report, Commissioned by the State Bar of California, July 2018; Bill Henderson, Legal Services Landscape Report (058), Legal Evolution.org, July 22, 2018; James Goodnow, Can Biglaw Go From Hoopty to Hot Rod?, Above the Law, July 27, 2018; Professor Dan Hunter, Legal Professionals need to adapt or they will be left behind, Swinburne.edu.au, July 26, 2018.

[6] Angela Wright, Resolving Complex Legal Issues is no Longer Enough – How will you step up in response to increasing demands?, LinkedIn, July 8, 2018.

[7] Emergent thinking (or ‘intelligent opportunism’) is the idea that, although strategic thinking is inherently concerned with shaping and reshaping strategic intent, there must be room for flexibility – an integration of both strategic and entrepreneurial thinking (both based on the theory of ‘effectuation’) – thus allowing leadership and organizations to consider new opportunities. Emergent thinking is about entrepreneurial leadership, adopting a flexible approach to strategy in order to take advantage of emerging strategies and new opportunities (that may be arguably more relevant in a rapidly changing business environment) and, by being ‘intelligently opportunistic’, can positively influence strategic decision making for the benefit of the organization. See: Peter Ginter, W. Jack Duncan, and Linda Swayne, Strategic Management of Health Care Organizations (8th edition), John Wiley & Sons, 2018; Sebastian Fixson and Jay Rao, Learning Emergent Strategies through Design Thinking, Design Management Review, Vol. 25, Issue 1, Spring 2014; Antonio Dottore and David Corkindale, Towards a Theory of Business Model Adaptation, Regional Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 2009: 6th International Australian Graduate School Entrepreneurship Research Exchange, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia, 2009; Walter Brenner and Falk Uebernickel, Design Thinking for Innovation: Research and Practice, Springer International Publishing, 2016; Marko Matalamaki, Effectuation, an emerging theory of entrepreneurship – towards a mature stage of the development, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 24, Issue 4, 2017; Steven Pattinson, Strategic Thinking: intelligent opportunism and emergent strategy – the case of Strategic Engineering Services, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Volume 7, No. 1, 2016:

“The purpose of strategic thinking, it has been suggested, is to: ‘discover novel, imaginative strategies which can re-write the rules of the competitive game; and to envision potential futures significantly different from the present’ (Heracleous, 1998, p 485). Strategic thinking is an essential prerequisite to firms’ survival (Beaver and Ross, 2000). More recently, strategic thinking has been related to the innovative aspects of a firm’s strategic planning (Harrison and St John, 2013). However, Mintzberg and Waters (1985) recognize that not all strategy is consciously planned, referring to ‘emergent strategy’ that is often developed intuitively by entrepreneurs rather than as the result of rational planning (Hill et al, 2014). The notion of emergent strategy is closely linked to the theory of ‘effectuation’ (Sarasvathy, 2001): that is, the notion that entrepreneurship is a way of thinking, reasoning and acting that focuses on the identification and exploitation of business opportunities from a broad general perspective, which Sarasvathy (2004) describes as the ‘essential agent’ of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is, therefore, associated with opportunity recognition and has been defined as the: ‘examination of how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities to create future goods and services are discovered, evaluated and exploited’ (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000, p 218), and the ability to recognize opportunities is widely viewed as a key step in the entrepreneurial process (Tang and Khan, 2007). The purpose of strategic thinking, on the other hand, is to clarify the future, allocate and manage resources and manage change (Thompson et al, 2014). However, to create the most value, entrepreneurial firms also need to act strategically, and this calls for an integration of both entrepreneurial and strategic thinking (Hitt et al, 2001), as Zahra and Nambisan (2012, p 219) explain: ‘Strategic thinking and the entrepreneurial activities … influence one another in a cycle that perpetuates and even sparks innovation’. The question is, how can these two concepts be successfully combined?

The concept of ‘intelligent opportunism’ refers to the idea that, although strategic thinking is inherently concerned with shaping and reshaping strategic intent, there must be room for flexibility (Hamel and Prahalad, 1989), thus allowing entrepreneurs to consider new opportunities. Intelligent opportunism involves entrepreneurs being open to new experiences that allow them to take advantage of emergent strategies that are, arguably, more relevant in a rapidly changing business environment and can be considered a form of ‘opportunistic’ strategy (Liedtka, 1998). … Intelligent opportunism is about adopting a flexible approach to strategy in order to take advantage of emerging strategies and new opportunities and, by being ‘intelligently opportunistic’, entrepreneurial leaders can influence strategic decision making (Haycock, 2012).”

Also see: Refilwe Mauda, The influence and causation strategies on corporate innovation in conditions of increased industry uncertainty, A research report re Master of Business Administration requirements, Gordon Institute of Business Science, University of Pretoria, January 13, 2015; Laura Paulina Mathiaszyk, Corporate Effectuation: Effectual Strategy for Corporate Management, Inaugural Dissertation for Doctor rerum oeconomicarum, Faculty of Economics, Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, June 2017; Jeroen oude Luttikhuis, Effectuation and Causation: The Effect of “Entrepreneurial Experience” and “Market Uncertainty”: An Analysis of Causation and Effectuation in Business Plans, Master Thesis (MSc Business Administration), May 20, 2014; Andre Hermes, Causation and effectuation vs. analysis and intuition: conceptual parallels in the context of entrepreneurial decision-making, 7th IBA Bachelor Thesis Conference, July 1, 2016 (Faculty of Behavioural, Management, and Social Sciences).

[8] It is suggested by some business and academic leaders that a “lack of entrepreneurial spirit is a major reason for the decreasing competitiveness – and even the eventual collapse – of big enterprises”, that “the only way to survive was to pursue a path of constant improvement” [Art Kleiner, China’s Philosopher-CEO Zhang Ruimin, Strategy & Business, November 10, 2014].

[10] For example, see: Eric Sigurdson, The Evolving Legal Service Delivery Model: A 2018 Survival Guide for BigLaw and Traditional Law Firms – building a new business model, Sigurdson Post, January 14, 2018.

[19] Emily Morrow, Strategic Planning for law firms – a practical guide, New Zealand Law Society, June 2, 2017 (“Many lawyers tell me that their law firm does not have, or has never had, a strategic plan”).

[20] Chris Bates, Law firms with clear strategic plans will win significant market share in FY19, Lawyers Weekly.com.au, July 12, 2018; John Sterling, Strategic Planning for Law Firms: A Practical Roadmap, Ark Group, 2012; David Parnell, Law Firm Strategic Planning and Deployment: A Report on the State of the Art, Forbes, June 9, 2017; Lindsey Muir, Alex Douglas, and Karon Meehan, Strategic issues for law firms in the new millennium, Journal of Organizational Transformation & Social Change, Vol. 1, Issue 2, 2004; Laura Slater (editor), The Lawyer’s Guide to Strategic Practice Management (2nd edition), Ark Group, 2015; Hiring for Tomorrow’s Law, Anz Research (Australia and New Zealand Banking Group), 2018; ‘Seismic change’ on the horizon, Legal Futures roundtable hears, Legal Futures.co.uk, July 16, 2018; Legal Futures Roundtable:The law firm of the future, Legal Futures.co.uk, July 2018; Eric Sigurdson, The Evolving Legal Service Delivery Model: A 2018 Survival Guide for BigLaw and Traditional Law Firms – building a new business model, Sigurdson Post, January 14, 2018.

[21] “What got you here won’t get you there!” – quote from Marshall Goldsmith, What Got You Here Won’t Get You There: How Successful People Become Even More Successful, Hyperion, 2007.

[22] Eric Beaudan, Leadership Lab: Do you have what it takes to be an executive?, Globe and Mail, July 10, 2018.

[26] Stephen Cummings and Urs Daellenbach, A Guide to the Future of Strategy? The History of Long Range Planning, Long Range Planning, Vol. 42, 2009. Also see, M. Zeleny, The fall of strategic planning, Human Systems Management, Vol. 16, 1997; P. McKiernan and C. Carter, The millennium nexus: strategic management at the crossroads, European Management Review, Vol. 1, 2004.

[27] Note: This framework or format is utilized for the purpose of this article, and may be considered a traditional or classic format, but it should be recognized that various academics over the years have addressed strategic management in similar but different parts, blocks, formats, or framework. For example: “strategic analysis, strategic formulation, strategic implementation”; or “strategic thinking, strategic planning, strategic momentum”; or “initial assessment, situation analysis, strategy formulation, strategy implementation, strategy monitoring”; or “analysis, formulation, implementation”; or “where are we?, where are we going?, how are we getting there?, how are we doing?”; etc.

[29] Michael Herman and Eve Enslow, Will you disrupt? Leading business transformation in the digital age, Enterprise.microsoft.com, November 29, 2015; Kevin Plumberg, Rethinking professional services in an age of disruption, The Economist Intelligence Unit, March 26, 2018; Paul Boag, Digital disruption is impacting every sector, even law firms, BoagWorld.com, March 8, 2016 (presentation to British legal technology forum); Frank Ribeiro, Augusto Giacoman, Maureen Trantham, Dealing with market disruption: Seven strategies for breaking down silos, Strategy& (strategyand.pwc.com), September 27, 2016; Michael Hirsh, Leadership Lab: How leaders must adapt to disruption, Globe and Mail, September 14, 2016; Brian Solis, Digital Darwinsim: How Disruptive Technology is Changing Business for Good, Wired, April 2014; Randy Bean, Interesting Times: Business Change in an Era of Tech Disruption, Forbes, July 11, 2017; Rhys Grossman, The Industries that are being Disrupted the most by Digital, Harvard Business Review, March 21, 2016; Magnus Fitchett, Business transformation: how to stay ahead of the game in the digital age, The Guardian, September 23, 2015:

“Since the beginning of this century, over half of Fortune 500 companies have disappeared. In their place has emerged a generation of new, digitally-driven businesses such as Facebook, Airbnb and Uber.”

[31] Jessica Leitch, David Lancefield, and Mark Dawson, 10 Principles of Strategic Leadership: How to develop and retain leaders who can guide your organization through tough times of fundamental change, Strategy & Business, May 18, 2016.

[34] Note: strategic management and strategic planning involve multifaceted issues, intricate processes, and demanding analysis. Not surprisingly, they do not provide an off the rack prescription for success nor do they promise instant solutions to all problems that an organization may face. Rather, strategic management and strategic planning are processes that take the organization through a journey that involves providing a framework for solving problems and addressing questions.

[36] Tim Berry, Simplify your small business strategy, Post Crescent.com, June 4, 2016; Tim Berry, A Simplified Approach to Setting Small Business Strategy, U.S. Small Business Administration (sba.gov), December 22, 2015.

“A set of certain consistent actions that form an unintended pattern that was not initially anticipated or intended in the initial planning phase. For example, although unintended, adopting an emergent strategy might help a business adapt more flexibly to the practicalities of changing market conditions.”

[40] David Hurst, Crisis and Renewal: Meeting the Challenge of Organizational Change, Harvard Business School Press, 1995; Eric Dane and Michael Pratt, Exploring Intuition and Its Role in Managerial Decision Making, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2007.

[41] Robert Kaplan and David Norton, Having Trouble with Your Strategy? Then Map It, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78, No. 5, September-October 2000; David Hurst, Crisis and Renewal: Meeting the Challenge of Organizational Change, Harvard Business School Press, 1995.

[44] Jessica Leitch, David Lancefield, and Mark Dawson, 10 Principles of Strategic Leadership: How to develop and retain leaders who can guide your organization through tough times of fundamental change, Strategy & Business, May 18, 2016; Charanjit Rihal, MD, Physicians Leading: The Importance of Leadership to Organizational Success, NEJM Catalyst, December 14, 2017; Paul Schoemaker, Steve Krupp, and Samantha Howland, Strategic Leadership: The Essential Skills, Harvard Business Review, January-February 2013; Anthony Abbatiello, Marjorie Knight, Stacey Philpot, and Indranil Roy, Leadership disrupted: Pushing the boundaries, Deloitte Insights, February 28, 2017; Robert Schaffer, All Management is Change Management, Harvard Business Review, October 26, 2017 (“Leaders should view change not as an occasional disruptor but as the very essence of the management job”); Eric Garton, How to Be an Inspiring Leader, Harvard Business Review, April 25, 2017; Mark Horwitch and Meredity Whipple Callahan, How Leaders Inspire: Cracking the Code, Bain.com, June 10, 2016; EY’s 7 Ways to Build Your Leadership Skills, ey.com, 2016.

[45] William Craig, Leadership Practices That Drive Results, Forbes, July 3, 2018. Also see, Daniel Jacobs, The Art of the Possible: Create an Organization with No Limitations, Federal Market Publishing, 2009.

[51] Henry Mintzberg, The Fall and Rise of Strategic Thinking, Harvard Business Review, January-February 1994. [note: Professor Mintzberg argued that strategic thinking is the critical part of formulating strategy, more so than strategic planning exercises].

[57] Emergent thinking (or ‘intelligent opportunism’) is the idea that, although strategic thinking is inherently concerned with shaping and reshaping strategic intent, there must be room for flexibility – an integration of both strategic and entrepreneurial thinking (both based on the theory of ‘effectuation’) – thus allowing leadership and organizations to consider new opportunities. Emergent thinking is about entrepreneurial leadership, adopting a flexible approach to strategy in order to take advantage of emerging strategies and new opportunities (that may be arguably more relevant in a rapidly changing business environment) and, by being ‘intelligently opportunistic’, can positively influence strategic decision making for the benefit of the organization. See: Peter Ginter, W. Jack Duncan, and Linda Swayne, Strategic Management of Health Care Organizations (8th edition), John Wiley & Sons, 2018; Sebastian Fixson and Jay Rao, Learning Emergent Strategies through Design Thinking, Design Management Review, Vol. 25, Issue 1, Spring 2014; Antonio Dottore and David Corkindale, Towards a Theory of Business Model Adaptation, Regional Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 2009: 6th International Australian Graduate School Entrepreneurship Research Exchange, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia, 2009; Walter Brenner and Falk Uebernickel, Design Thinking for Innovation: Research and Practice, Springer International Publishing, 2016; Marko Matalamaki, Effectuation, an emerging theory of entrepreneurship – towards a mature stage of the development, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 24, Issue 4, 2017; Steven Pattinson, Strategic Thinking: intelligent opportunism and emergent strategy – the case of Strategic Engineering Services, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Volume 7, No. 1, 2016:

“The purpose of strategic thinking, it has been suggested, is to: ‘discover novel, imaginative strategies which can re-write the rules of the competitive game; and to envision potential futures significantly different from the present’ (Heracleous, 1998, p 485). Strategic thinking is an essential prerequisite to firms’ survival (Beaver and Ross, 2000). More recently, strategic thinking has been related to the innovative aspects of a firm’s strategic planning (Harrison and St John, 2013). However, Mintzberg and Waters (1985) recognize that not all strategy is consciously planned, referring to ‘emergent strategy’ that is often developed intuitively by entrepreneurs rather than as the result of rational planning (Hill et al, 2014).

The notion of emergent strategy is closely linked to the theory of ‘effectuation’ (Sarasvathy, 2001): that is, the notion that entrepreneurship is a way of thinking, reasoning and acting that focuses on the identification and exploitation of business opportunities from a broad general perspective, which Sarasvathy (2004) describes as the ‘essential agent’ of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is, therefore, associated with opportunity recognition and has been defined as the: ‘examination of how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities to create future goods and services are discovered, evaluated and exploited’ (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000, p 218), and the ability to recognize opportunities is widely viewed as a key step in the entrepreneurial process (Tang and Khan, 2007). The purpose of strategic thinking, on the other hand, is to clarify the future, allocate and manage resources and manage change (Thompson et al, 2014). However, to create the most value, entrepreneurial firms also need to act strategically, and this calls for an integration of both entrepreneurial and strategic thinking (Hitt et al, 2001), as Zahra and Nambisan (2012, p 219) explain: ‘Strategic thinking and the entrepreneurial activities … influence one another in a cycle that perpetuates and even sparks innovation’. The question is, how can these two concepts be successfully combined?

The concept of ‘intelligent opportunism’ refers to the idea that, although strategic thinking is inherently concerned with shaping and reshaping strategic intent, there must be room for flexibility (Hamel and Prahalad, 1989), thus allowing entrepreneurs to consider new opportunities. Intelligent opportunism involves entrepreneurs being open to new experiences that allow them to take advantage of emergent strategies that are, arguably, more relevant in a rapidly changing business environment and can be considered a form of ‘opportunistic’ strategy (Liedtka, 1998). Intelligent opportunism therefore acts as a locus for combining opportunity recognition and emergent strategies, as Liedtka (1998, p 123) explains: ‘within this [type of] intent-driven focus, there must be room for intelligent opportunism that not only furthers intended strategy but that also leave open the possibility of new strategies emerging’. Intelligent opportunism is about adopting a flexible approach to strategy in order to take advantage of emerging strategies and new opportunities and, by being ‘intelligently opportunistic’, entrepreneurial leaders can influence strategic decision making (Haycock, 2012).”

Also see: Refilwe Mauda, The influence and causation strategies on corporate innovation in conditions of increased industry uncertainty, A research report re Master of Business Administration requirements, Gordon Institute of Business Science, University of Pretoria, January 13, 2015; Laura Paulina Mathiaszyk, Corporate Effectuation: Effectual Strategy for Corporate Management, Inaugural Dissertation for Doctor rerum oeconomicarum, Faculty of Economics, Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, June 2017; Jeroen oude Luttikhuis, Effectuation and Causation: The Effect of “Entrepreneurial Experience” and “Market Uncertainty”: An Analysis of Causation and Effectuation in Business Plans, Master Thesis (MSc Business Administration), May 20, 2014; Andre Hermes, Causation and effectuation vs. analysis and intuition: conceptual parallels in the context of entrepreneurial decision-making, 7th IBA Bachelor Thesis Conference, July 1, 2016 (Faculty of Behavioural, Management, and Social Sciences).

[69]Picking the Brain of the World’s Most Radical CEO: Zhang Ruimin, Corporate Rebels, March 25, 2018:

“The Fortune 500 disease: By the ‘Fortune 500 disease’ Zhang refers to the 90% of the companies on the original (1955) Fortune 500 list that are no longer on it. They have been unable to weather the disruptions of the last six decades. This suggests that big enterprises can’t easily survive in the long-term.

One might conclude that many of the current Fortune 500 will soon be replaced by novel companies, and maybe by companies from emerging markets and industries. This will happen if they don’t transform themselves successfully in time. It’s a clear result of the demanding, dynamic character of an increasingly user-oriented market economy.”

Also see: Magnus Fitchett, Business transformation: how to stay ahead of the game in the digital age, The Guardian, September 23, 2015:

“Since the beginning of this century, over half of Fortune 500 companies have disappeared. In their place has emerged a generation of new, digitally-driven businesses such as Facebook, Airbnb and Uber.”

[70]Picking the Brain of the World’s Most Radical CEO: Zhang Ruimin, Corporate Rebels, March 25, 2018.

[71] Digital disruption is the change that occurs when new digital technologies and business models affect the value proposition of existing goods and/or services. For discussion and examples see: Andreas Bubenzer-Paim, Why No Industries Is Safe From Tech Disruption, Forbes, November 7, 2017; Insights Team, The Reality of Digital Disruption – How To Stay Ahead, Forbes, July 17, 2018; Chris Bradley and Clayton O’Toole, An incumbent’s guide to digital disruption, McKinsey Quarterly, May 2016; Peter Weill and Stephanie Woerner, Why Companies Need a New Playbook to Succeed in the Digital Age, MIT Sloan Management Review, June 28, 2018:

“[A] 2017 survey conducted by the MIT Center for Information Systems Research (CISR) with senior leadership from across the globe, 413 senior executives reported that over the next five years their companies may be at risk of losing an average of 28% of their revenues because of digital disruption. This means that many companies may need to figure out how to replace over a quarter of their revenues — and figure it out soon.”

[74] Emergent thinking (or ‘intelligent opportunism’) is the idea that, although strategic thinking is inherently concerned with shaping and reshaping strategic intent, there must be room for flexibility – an integration of both strategic and entrepreneurial thinking (both based on the theory of ‘effectuation’) – thus allowing leadership and organizations to consider new opportunities. Emergent thinking is about entrepreneurial leadership, adopting a flexible approach to strategy in order to take advantage of emerging strategies and new opportunities (that may be arguably more relevant in a rapidly changing business environment) and, by being ‘intelligently opportunistic’, can positively influence strategic decision making for the benefit of the organization. See: Peter Ginter, W. Jack Duncan, and Linda Swayne, Strategic Management of Health Care Organizations (8th edition), John Wiley & Sons, 2018; Sebastian Fixson and Jay Rao, Learning Emergent Strategies through Design Thinking, Design Management Review, Vol. 25, Issue 1, Spring 2014; Antonio Dottore and David Corkindale, Towards a Theory of Business Model Adaptation, Regional Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 2009: 6th International Australian Graduate School Entrepreneurship Research Exchange, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia, 2009; Walter Brenner and Falk Uebernickel, Design Thinking for Innovation: Research and Practice, Springer International Publishing, 2016; Marko Matalamaki, Effectuation, an emerging theory of entrepreneurship – towards a mature stage of the development, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 24, Issue 4, 2017; Steven Pattinson, Strategic Thinking: intelligent opportunism and emergent strategy – the case of Strategic Engineering Services, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Volume 7, No. 1, 2016:

“The purpose of strategic thinking, it has been suggested, is to: ‘discover novel, imaginative strategies which can re-write the rules of the competitive game; and to envision potential futures significantly different from the present’ (Heracleous, 1998, p 485). Strategic thinking is an essential prerequisite to firms’ survival (Beaver and Ross, 2000). More recently, strategic thinking has been related to the innovative aspects of a firm’s strategic planning (Harrison and St John, 2013). However, Mintzberg and Waters (1985) recognize that not all strategy is consciously planned, referring to ‘emergent strategy’ that is often developed intuitively by entrepreneurs rather than as the result of rational planning (Hill et al, 2014).

The notion of emergent strategy is closely linked to the theory of ‘effectuation’ (Sarasvathy, 2001): that is, the notion that entrepreneurship is a way of thinking, reasoning and acting that focuses on the identification and exploitation of business opportunities from a broad general perspective, which Sarasvathy (2004) describes as the ‘essential agent’ of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is, therefore, associated with opportunity recognition and has been defined as the: ‘examination of how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities to create future goods and services are discovered, evaluated and exploited’ (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000, p 218), and the ability to recognize opportunities is widely viewed as a key step in the entrepreneurial process (Tang and Khan, 2007). The purpose of strategic thinking, on the other hand, is to clarify the future, allocate and manage resources and manage change (Thompson et al, 2014). However, to create the most value, entrepreneurial firms also need to act strategically, and this calls for an integration of both entrepreneurial and strategic thinking (Hitt et al, 2001), as Zahra and Nambisan (2012, p 219) explain: ‘Strategic thinking and the entrepreneurial activities … influence one another in a cycle that perpetuates and even sparks innovation’. The question is, how can these two concepts be successfully combined?

The concept of ‘intelligent opportunism’ refers to the idea that, although strategic thinking is inherently concerned with shaping and reshaping strategic intent, there must be room for flexibility (Hamel and Prahalad, 1989), thus allowing entrepreneurs to consider new opportunities. Intelligent opportunism involves entrepreneurs being open to new experiences that allow them to take advantage of emergent strategies that are, arguably, more relevant in a rapidly changing business environment and can be considered a form of ‘opportunistic’ strategy (Liedtka, 1998). Intelligent opportunism therefore acts as a locus for combining opportunity recognition and emergent strategies, as Liedtka (1998, p 123) explains: ‘within this [type of] intent-driven focus, there must be room for intelligent opportunism that not only furthers intended strategy but that also leave open the possibility of new strategies emerging’. Intelligent opportunism is about adopting a flexible approach to strategy in order to take advantage of emerging strategies and new opportunities and, by being ‘intelligently opportunistic’, entrepreneurial leaders can influence strategic decision making (Haycock, 2012).”

Also see: Refilwe Mauda, The influence and causation strategies on corporate innovation in conditions of increased industry uncertainty, A research report re Master of Business Administration requirements, Gordon Institute of Business Science, University of Pretoria, January 13, 2015; Laura Paulina Mathiaszyk, Corporate Effectuation: Effectual Strategy for Corporate Management, Inaugural Dissertation for Doctor rerum oeconomicarum, Faculty of Economics, Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, June 2017; Jeroen oude Luttikhuis, Effectuation and Causation: The Effect of “Entrepreneurial Experience” and “Market Uncertainty”: An Analysis of Causation and Effectuation in Business Plans, Master Thesis (MSc Business Administration), May 20, 2014; Andre Hermes, Causation and effectuation vs. analysis and intuition: conceptual parallels in the context of entrepreneurial decision-making, 7th IBA Bachelor Thesis Conference, July 1, 2016 (Faculty of Behavioural, Management, and Social Sciences).

[77] Tristan Boutros, The Organization as an Ecosystem, bpm.com, November 11, 2014; Business Ecosystem, Investopedia.com:

“What is a ‘Business Ecosystem’

A business ecosystem is the network of organizations — including suppliers, distributors, customers, competitors, government agencies, and so on — involved in the delivery of a specific product or service through both competition and cooperation. The idea is that each entity in the ecosystem affects and is affected by the others, creating a constantly evolving relationship in which each entity must be flexible and adaptable in order to survive, as in a biological ecosystem.

BREAKING DOWN ‘Business Ecosystem’ …

Business strategist James Moore adopted this biological concept in his 1993 Harvard Business Review article “Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition” through which he paralleled companies operating in the increasingly interconnected world of commerce to a community of organisms adapting and evolving to survive. Moore suggested that a company be viewed not as a single firm in an industry, but as a member of a business ecosystem with participants spanning across multiple industries.

Advances in technology and increasing globalization have changed ideas about the best ways to do business, and the idea of a business ecosystem is thought to help companies understand how to thrive in this rapidly changing environment. Moore defined the business ecosystem as “an economic community supported by a foundation of interacting organizations and individuals — the organisms of the business world. The economic community produces goods and services of value to customers, who are themselves members of the ecosystem. The member organisms also include suppliers, lead producers, competitors and other stakeholders. Over time, they co-evolve their capabilities and roles and tend to align themselves with the directions set by one or more central companies. Those companies holding leadership roles may change over time, but the function of ecosystem leader is valued by the community because it enables members to move toward shared visions to align their investments and to find mutually supportive roles.”

In effect, the business ecosystem consists of a network of interlinked companies that dynamically interact with each other through competition and cooperation to grow sales and survive. An ecosystem includes suppliers, distributors, consumers, government, processes, products and competitors. When an ecosystem thrives, it means that the participants have developed patterns of behavior that streamline the flow of ideas, talent and capital throughout the system.

Ecosystems create strong barriers to entry for new competition, as potential entrants not only have to duplicate or better the core product, but they also must compete against the entire system of independent complementing businesses and suppliers that form the network. Being a part of a business ecosystem provides mechanisms to leverage technology, achieve excellence in research and business competence and compete effectively against other companies. Some other goals of a business ecosystem include:

driving new collaborations to address rising social and environmental challenges.

harnessing creativity and innovation to lower the cost of production or allow members to reach new customers.

[81] Jorge Barba, How to Practice the Art of the Possible, Game Changer.net, March 21, 2017; J. Thomas Wren, Teaching Leadership: The Art of the Possible, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, March 1, 1994.

[83] For example, see Arindam Bhattacharya, Martin Reeves, Nikolaus Lang, Rajah Augustinraj, New Business Models for a New Global Landscape, BCG Henderson Institute, November 14, 2017. Also see, Jason Moyse and Aron Solomon, Remaking the law firm ecosystem, Canadian Lawyer, July 4, 2016; Ron Friedman, Will All Law Firms Eventually Corporatize?, LinkedIn, December 17, 2017; Eric Sigurdson, The Evolving Legal Service Delivery Model: A 2018 Survival Guide for BigLaw and Traditional Law Firms – building a new business model, Sigurdson Post, January 14, 2018; Heather Morse, Is the ‘game changer’ for the legal industry finally here?, The Legal Watercooler, July 25, 2018. Also see, Cognizant Reports, Blockchain in Europe: Closing the Strategy Gap, cognizant.com, January 2018; Jason Tashea, Law firms, tech companies partner to build new blockchain-based platform for smart contracts, ABA Journal, July 30, 2018; Professor Dan Hunter, Legal Professionals need to adapt or they will be left behind, Swinburne.edu.au, July 26, 2018.

[90] A “vision statement” is a declaration of an organization’s objectives, intended to guide its internal decision-making. It is an organization’s guide, indicating both what the company wants to become and guiding transformational initiatives by setting a defined direction for the organization’s growth. Vision statements undergo minimal revisions during the life of a business, unlike operational goals which may be updated from year-to-year. A vision statement is “An aspirational description of what an organisation would like to achieve or accomplish in the mid-term or long-term future. It is intended to serve as a clear guide for choosing current and future courses of action.”

[91] A “mission statement” is a short statement of an organization’s purpose, identifying the goal of its operations: what kind of product or service it provides, its primary customers or market, and its geographical region of operation. It may include a short statement of such fundamental matters as the organization’s values or philosophies, a business’s main competitive advantages, or a desired future state—the “vision”. A mission is made by its leaders, of their intent for the organization. The purpose of a mission statement is to focus and direct the organization itself. It communicates primarily to the people who make up the organization—its members or employees—giving them a shared understanding of the organization’s intended direction. Organizations normally do not change their mission statements over time, since they define their continuous, ongoing purpose and focus.

[97] Wayne Brody and Mark Rowe, Corporate Culture and Compliance in the 21st Century, New York Law Journal: Compliance, October 27, 2014; Also see, David Greenberg, Ethics and Compliance in the 21st Century, Abbc.org (LRN corp), September 2015; Michael Rasmussen, Compliance Risk Management in the 21st Century, Corporate Integrity, September 2011.

[111] William Arruda, Why Your Team Needs to Focus on the Forest and the Trees, Forbes, July 15, 2018.

[112] External Environmental Scan – Immediate/industry environment: examining the industry environment requires an appraisal of the competitive structure of the organization’s industry, including the competitive position of a particular organization and its main rivals. Also, an assessment of the nature, stage, dynamics and history of the industry is essential. It also implies evaluating the effect of globalization on competition within the industry.

[113] External Environmental Scan – National environment: analyzing the national environment requires an appraisal of whether the national framework helps in achieving competitive advantage in the globalized environment.

[115] Internal Environmental Scan – internal analysis of the environment is the first step of environment scanning. Organizations should observe the internal organizational environment. This includes employee interaction with other employees, employee interaction with management, manager interaction with other managers, and management interaction with shareholders/stakeholders, access to resources, brand awareness, organizational structure, main staff, operational potential, etc. Also, discussions, interviews, and surveys can be used to assess the internal environment. Analysis of internal environment helps in identifying strengths and weaknesses of an organization.

[117] For example, see: PEST Analysis (technique for understanding the “environment” in which a business operates); Scenario Planning (technique that builds various plausible views of possible futures for a business); Five Forces Analysis (technique for identifying the forces which affect the level of competition in an industry); Market Segmentation (technique which seeks to identify similarities and differences between groups of customers or users); Directional Policy Matrix (technique which summarizes the competitive strength of a businesses’ operations in specific markets); Competitor Analysis (wide range of techniques and analysis that seeks to summarize a businesses’ overall competitive position); Critical Success Factor Analysis (technique to identify those areas in which a business must outperform the competition in order to succeed).

[134] Chris Bradley, How biases, politics and egos trump good strategy: when creating a strategy for your organization there are many obstacles. It’s important to know what they are and how to get around them, McKinsey & Company (mckinsey.com), January 18, 2018. Also see, Scott Kirsner, The Biggest Obstacles to Innovation in Large Companies, Harvard Business Review, July 30, 2018.

[136] Robert Schaffer, All Management is Change Management, Harvard Business Review, October 26, 2017; Nick Tasler, Stop Using the Excuse ‘Organizational Change is Hard’, Harvard Business Review, July 19, 2017.

[137] James Sudakow, If You Don’t Build your Culture, One Will Form on its Own (and you might not like what you get), Inc, February 23, 2017.

[142] Bernard Marr, What the Heck is a … Balanced Scorecard?, LinkedIn.com, July 25, 2013; Bernard Marr, What is a Balanced Scorecard? A Quick Overview, Bernard Marr & Co.com. Also see, Robert Kaplan and David Norton, The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action, Harvard Business School Press, 1996; Robert Kaplan and David Norton, The Balanced Scorecard – Measures that Drive Performance, Harvard Business Review, January-February 1992; Balanced Scorecard, Investopedia.com; What is a Balanced Scorecard?, Balanced Score Cards.com:

“Overview

The Balanced Scorecard is a management system. It’s a way of looking at your organization that focuses on your big-picture strategic goals. It also helps you choose the right things to measure so that you can reach those goals. …

A balanced scorecard looks at your organization from four different perspectives to measure its health. Each of these perspectives focuses on a different side of your company, creating a balanced view of your organization.

Learning and Growth

The learning and growth perspective looks at your overall corporate culture. Are people aware of the latest industry trends? Is it easy for employees to collaborate and share knowledge, or is your company a mess of tangled bureaucracy? Does everyone have access to training and continuing education opportunities?

Technology plays a major role in learning and growth. Are people able to use the latest devices and software, or are your archaic systems stuck running yesterday’s tech? What are you doing to make sure your organization is staying ahead of your competition?

Internal Business Processes

The internal business processes perspective looks at how smoothly your business is running. Efficiency is important here. It’s all about reducing waste, speeding things up, and doing more with less. Are there unneeded obstacles standing between new ideas and execution? How quickly can you adapt to changing business conditions?

This perspective also encourages you to take a step back and get a little philosophical about your company. Are you providing what your customers actually want? What should you be best at?

Customer

The customer perspective focuses on the people who actually buy your products and services. Are you winning new business? How about keeping your existing customers happy? How are you viewed in your industry compared to your competitors?

Customer satisfaction is a great forward-looking indicator of success. The way you treat your customers today directly impacts how much money you’ll make tomorrow.

Financial

Just because we’re taking a balanced look at your organization doesn’t mean that we want to ignore traditional financial measures. Quite the contrary, the financial perspective is a major focus of the balanced scorecard.

Are you making money? Are your shareholders happy? The financial health of your organization may be a lagging indicator showing the result of past decisions, but it’s still incredibly important. Money keeps companies alive, and the financial perspective focuses solely on that.

Stacking the Perspectives

In the early years of the balanced scorecard, each of the four perspectives were shown as being independent of the others. Over time, however, people began to discover that these perspectives affect each other in surprising ways. It turns out that the way we order them matters.

Modern balanced scorecards show how each perspective builds on the previous one. If you train your employees and build a culture of information sharing (Learning and Growth), they’ll make your company run more smoothly (Internal Business Processes). A better running business takes better care of its customers (Customer), and happy customers buy more of what you’re selling (Financial).

Strategic Objectives

The next step in creating a balanced scorecard is choosing several strategic objectives for each perspective. Up until now we’ve dealt with large, vague concepts. This is where things get concrete. …

Strategy Map

If you already know a little about the balanced scorecard, that graphic showing your strategic objectives on top of the four perspectives may look familiar. It’s the start of something called a strategy map, and it’s a common way to show an organization’s strategy at a glance.

The final step in creating a strategy map is to draw arrows between your strategic objectives that show the cause and effect chain.

You can read your balanced scorecard’s strategic flow by starting at the bottom and following the paths to the top. Your strategy map tells the story of your organization’s strategy. …

Measures

The final building blocks of a balanced scorecard are measures. Every strategic objective should have one or two things that you measure to determine how it’s performing. These measures need goals and should be measured on a regular schedule.

Summary

Balanced scorecards can seem a little confusing at first, but they’re really not that complicated. To summarize:

Perspectives – A balanced scorecard is broken down into four Perspectives.

Strategic Objectives – Each perspective has several Strategic Objectives.

Strategy Map – A chart showing the relationships between strategic objectives is called a Strategy Map.

[144] Bernard Marr, What the Heck is a … Balanced Scorecard?, LinkedIn.com, July 25, 2013; Bernard Marr, What is a Balanced Scorecard? A Quick Overview, Bernard Marr & Co.com. Note: Bernard Marr is a bestselling author, keynote speaker, and advisor to organizations. LinkedIn has ranked Bernard Marr as one of the top 10 Business Influencers in the world. He writes on the topics of intelligent business performance for various publications including Forbes, HuffPost, and LinkedIn Pulse.

[146] Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, What Makes Great Boards Great, Harvard Business Review, September 2002; Marco Ventoruzzo, Dissenting Directors, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, corpgov.law.harvard.edu, November 4, 2016; Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Elise Walton, What Makes Great Boards Great: The Character of Leadership & Governance 2001-2016, Global Dialogue 2016, aist.asn.au.; Bernie Tenenbaum, Who Do I want on my Board of Directors?, Forbes, January 26, 2017; Bernie Tenenbaum, Top 10 Questions High Performance Directors Ask Before Joining a Board, Forbes, April 21, 2017.

[147] Harvard Business Review, The ‘Business in Society’ Imperatives for CEOs, Global Advisors, December 20, 2016; Jorg Thierfelder, The Role of the General Counsel with the Board of Directors, Egon Zehnder.com, 2017.

[148] Phil Hassan, Leadership and Organizational Decision-making, ISQua Fellowship Forum (isqua.org), February 2016; Kevin Eikenberry, Four Steps to Making a Complex Decision, Kenin Eikenberry’s Leadership and Learning, October 25, 2011. Also see, Marci Martin, How to Make Effective Business Decisions, Business News Daily, October 12, 2105; Gilbert Probst, Six Tips for taking complex decisions at work, World Economic Forum, April 15, 2014; Gilbert Probst and Andrea Bassi, Tackling Complexity: A Systematic Approach for Decision Makers, March 2014.

The Sigurdson Post was developed for the legal profession, business, political decision makers, and the general public to engage and inform and provide a framework for reflection. Our goal is to provide a publication that rewards our readers for their time.

Thought of the Day

Loading Quotes...

This publication is designed to sensitize the reader to matters of general interest relating to recent developments in the law. Legal counsel should be consulted with regard to specific application of the information on a case-by-case basis. The contributors and editors assume no liability whatsoever in connection with the use of information contained in this publication.